6/6/03 09/03 10/17/03 11/25/02 9/5/02 5/20/02 12/19/01 10/23/01 7/20/01 4/30/01 4/2/01 2/20/01 12/4/00 10/20/00 9/7/00 8/18/00 6/2/00 4/27/00 3/13/00 3/00

Nov. 2, 2007 Dec. 30, 2005 Sept. 9, 2004

My New Writing On Dennis Prager


First line in Dennis Prager's interview with Johnathan Chait, editor of The New Republic.

Dennis: "Let me tell you about me. I've subscribed to TNR for more than 35 years."

Sgil46: There was a certain smarminess about chait's delivery that DP was too polite to comment upon. That's one of the things that his "good" host behavior works against. Why not say "why the smug delivery?" Is your enjoyment of schadenfreude so immense you can't contain yourself on national radio? That's the kind of problem we witness on national TV on a daily basis whenever a conservative or even a non-political but popular figure get in a tight position. Aren't you a little embarrassed?"

DP on Rush Limbaugh's addiction to pain killers: What Rush did was not immoral, it was illegal. It's a tragedy. Rush had a failed back surgery. Unsurprisingly, he became addicted to pain killers.

When you're a conservative, and you do something personally inconsistent with conservative ideals, you're tagged as a hypocrite. Liberals don't stand for personal standards, thus they can't be called hypocrites. If Howard Stern were hooked on painkillers, nobody would say he was a hypocrite.

If Rush spent his time attacking people addicted to painkillers, he'd be a hypocrite. There's no comparison between heroin and painkillers.

What Rush did was unwise. He should've gone public with it. It would've been a good cause for him to take up.

How do you work for someone for four years (Rush's housekeeper), and then snitch on him? She must've sold out for money.

I read the Newsweek cover story and felt sorry for Rush. He leads a lonely life.


Rush Limbaugh Was Right

Donovan McNabb isn't a great quarterback, and the media do overrate him because he is black.

Allen Barra writes on Slate.com:

If Limbaugh were a more astute analyst, he would have been even harsher and said, "Donovan McNabb is barely a mediocre quarterback." But other than that, Limbaugh pretty much spoke the truth. Limbaugh lost his job for saying in public what many football fans and analysts have been saying privately for the past couple of seasons.

Limbaugh is being excoriated for making race an issue in the NFL. This is hypocrisy. I don't know of a football writer who didn't regard the dearth of black NFL quarterbacks as one of the most important issues in the late '80s and early '90s. (The topic really caught fire after 1988, when Doug Williams of the Washington Redskins became the first black quarterback to win a Super Bowl.)

So far, no black quarterback has been able to dominate a league in which the majority of the players are black. To pretend that many of us didn't want McNabb to be the best quarterback in the NFL because he's black is absurd. To say that we shouldn't root for a quarterback to win because he's black is every bit as nonsensical as to say that we shouldn't have rooted for Jackie Robinson to succeed because he was black.

Consequently, it is equally absurd to say that the sports media haven't overrated Donovan McNabb because he's black. I'm sorry to have to say it; he is the quarterback for a team I root for. Instead of calling him overrated, I wish I could be admiring his Super Bowl rings. But the truth is that I and a great many other sportswriters have chosen for the past few years to see McNabb as a better player than he has been because we want him to be.

Rush Limbaugh didn't say Donovan McNabb was a bad quarterback because he is black. He said that the media have overrated McNabb because he is black, and Limbaugh is right. He didn't say anything that he shouldn't have said, and in fact he said things that other commentators should have been saying for some time now. I should have said them myself. I mean, if they didn't hire Rush Limbaugh to say things like this, what they did they hire him for? To talk about the prevent defense?

Dennis Prager says: The liberals are lying about what Rush said and the non-liberals are not. There is nothing Rush said that was racist. Limbaugh's comment was about the news media who do over-rate McNabb because he is black.

About 99% of the sports columns fulminate again Limbaugh. These sportswriters think alike, talk alike, write alike.

Do you know why the two black guys on with Limbaugh on ESPN didn't react? Because they didn't have a problem with it. They probably thought it was true. Boy, are these two black guys (Michael Irvin, ) getting flack for not being tribal enough. For not thinking the same way because of their skin color.


William Morris Drops John Connolly's Arnold Book

Nikki Finke writes for the LA Weekly:

As the L.A. Weekly first reported, New York–based freelance journalist John Connolly was planning to shop his book proposal about Ah-nuld right after the October 7 election. Connolly, author of that infamous Premiere magazine profile of Schwarzenegger that alleged moral turpitude and sexual harassment, said that William Morris’ Mel Berger was his agent for the project.

On Tuesday evening, Connolly said he’d just received a panicky call from Berger who seemed alarmed that the project was suddenly receiving premature publicity. That day, not only had Connolly told Berger he’d talked about the book to the Weekly, but a blogger had written that the William Morris Agency (WMA) was representing it. However, Connolly maintains that when he went to bed on Tuesday night, Berger was still the book’s agent.

What a difference 12 hours can make.

On Wednesday morning, the Weekly received a call from Chris Petrikin, spokesman for WMA, saying Berger was not representing Connolly’s Arnold book. Quoting Berger, Petrikin said the agent who had represented Connolly years ago passed on the current project between 4 and 6 p.m. EST on Tuesday and had delivered the bad news to Connolly during the same time frame.

Nikki Finke writes further here

LAT's investigation of Arnold turns up six women who say he groped and humiliated them

Dennis Prager reacted with retching to the Times investigation: In the arena in which Arnold moved, this behavior is the norm. Four of the women did not give their names. They were afraid of coming forward because there might be retribution in Hollywood. Does anyone believe that if you come out in Hollywood against a Republican, there will be retribution against you?

Who's going to be hard on you? Barbra Streisand? Robert Alter?

If you say Republicans have talk radio, that's fair. We admit it. The Democrats have the national newspapers like The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, and TV news.

It's so transparent that the Times does not want Schwarzenegger elected. Now they give it a three-column headline. That women come forward a few days before the election, makes it all suspicious.

Did the LA Times put on the front page that Cruz Bustamente said "nigger" in a public speech? And I've said that disqualifies him. And I think that is worse [than what Arnold purportedly did].

The LA Times looks like a Democratic party rag sheet. You're stupid. It's so predictable. You look like another wing of the Democratic party.

Three columns on a breast was touched in 1975. Look at the headline: "Women Say Schwarzenegger Groped, Humiliated Them"

It's the worst possible headline they could think of. One woman said Arnold humiliated her.

There's infinitely more forgiveness in the news media for what liberals do than what conservatives do.

I hope more than ever that Arnold wins big. If he wins, the Times loses. The public says, take your dirt stories and shove them up your anal cavities.

It reminds me of what the news media and the Democracts did to Bruce Herschonsen in 1992 - that he attended strip shows and bought skin magazines.

Six women say they were touched. I don't defend that conduct. I've never done it ever. But in that context, in that world, it's normal.

The LA Times looks much worse than does Arnold. A vote for Schwarzenegger is a vote against the politics of filth.

The attempts to destroy Rush Limbaugh and Arnold Schwarzenegger are fascinating and nauseating to watch. I don't know which is most contemptible.

What Rush Limbaugh said may have been stupid, but the press crucified him out of proportion. When Jesse Jackson said "hymie-town," people like me said it was no big deal.

"I think what we've had here is a little social concern in the NFL,'' Limbaugh said. "The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well. They're interested in black coaches and black quarterbacks doing well ... McNabb got a lot of the credit for the performance of the team that he really didn't deserve.''

The press do want to see a black quarterback succeed. The press talks constantly about the lack of black coaches in the NFL. It's a constant desire in the press to see blacks succeed at positions where they have not succeeded historically. I have wanted black quarterbacks to succeed.

Rush Limbaugh's attack was on the press, not on blacks. I read the comment five times. I thought about it all night. He doesn't believe that black achievement in sports is over-rated. Does he think Barry Bonds is over-rated?

Democrats and liberals often said that the only reason for Clarence Thomas's (conservative US Supreme Court justice) success was because he was black.


From NYTimes.com: The effect of 30 years of feminism on television is a little like an old folk legend: a crippled peasant asks God to make both his hands the same and awakens to find that both are shriveled.

Women on television are still sometimes squeezed into demeaning caricatures (or at least inappropriate clothing: surgeons, homicide detectives and high school teachers all wear low-cut tank tops to work). But increasingly, so are men. The new fall season shrinks the number of belittling stereotypes they may occupy to just two: cads or dads.

Recent genetic research suggesting that the Y chromosome is devolving — turning men into what Steve Jones, a British geneticist, labeled the "second sex" — has found support in prime time. From CBS to the WB, the fall shows depict men the way women were once depicted: as supporting characters propelled by their biological imperative. And perhaps because science has made it so much easier for women to conceive children without a partner, these television fathers do not know best.

Dennis Prager says: Women watch more TV than men and it has a negative impact on them. Women seek to relate to TV characters if they don't have enough real people in their life. TV shows now relentlessly bash men as pathetic.

One man called to say he noticed a negative difference in the behavior and attitude of his girlfriend after she got together regularly on Sunday nights with her female friends to watch Sex in the City.

Why Single Women Vote Democractic

Dennis Prager writes:

Given women's primal desire to be protected, if a woman has no man to provide it, she will seek security elsewhere -- and elsewhere today can only mean the government. In effect, the state becomes her husband. This phenomenon has frequently been commented on with regard to the breakdown of many black families. The welfare state simply rendered many black men unnecessary and therefore undesirable as spouses: Why marry when you can get more benefits from the state while remaining single (and get even more money if you have children while remaining single)?

Once a woman does marry, however, her need for the state not only diminishes, she now begins to view the state as inimical to her interests. For the married woman, especially if she has children, two primal urges work against her having a pro-big government attitude. Her urge to be protected, which is now fulfilled by her husband, and her primal urge to protect her nest are now endangered by the government, which as it grows, takes away more and more of her family's money.

Dennis Prager Supports Whites-Only Club

OAKLEY, Calif. -- Lisa McClelland says she isn't a racist. She says her campaign for a Caucasian Club at her California high school is a move toward diversity, not bigotry.

McClelland says she's collected 245 signatures of support from students, adults and others since announcing her plans three weeks ago. One person who won't be signing up is Darnell Turner, first vice president of the local chapter of the NAACP. Turner says he thinks the club will create racial tension.


On his nationally syndicated radio show, Dennis Prager says that for the first time he supports white clubs, as there are already black, Latino and asian clubs in schools. There are separation dorms and graduating ceremonies for blacks and Latinos. So why shouldn't whites have their only club? No caller during the hour could answer that question.


Find a Husband After 35 Using What I Learned at Harvard Business School: A Revolutionary 15-Step Action Program

Dennis Prager interviewed author Rachel Greenwald. "Interviewed" is the wrong verb. For much of the hour, Prager interrupted and lectured his guest as he usually does. Dennis can never keep himself in the background in an interview. His own views must be foremost and the guest must constantly respond to and cater to Prager's thoughts and feelings. I can't recall one guest out of hundreds who has appreciated being repeatedly interrupted by Prager so Dennis can lecture the guest.

You'd think Prager's 15 hours or so a week on the air alone would be enough for him so that for a handful of hours a week, he can leave his ego in the background and concentrate on his guest. He's a lousy interviewer. He's particularly bad with women, particularly young women, because they are most likely to allow him to ride roughshod over them, and be left speechless by his pompous "asides."

I remember near the end of an interview with British journalist Paul Johnson, Dennis Prager interrupted to say he'd attended the University of Leeds. Johnson and the audience did not care at that moment. Prager has had plenty of other times on air alone to talk about his experience in England for one year.

Prager talked about his $30 singles afternoons. A man got up and said he didn't understand - women want him to be decisive and come up with a restaurant for a date. After he does, they always say they want to go someplace else. Prager made a good comeback - welcome to life with women. They want you to come up with something, but it is rarely good enough.

I am 37 and have dated a lot. I have rarely experienced that restaurant syndrome.

Prager said he was favorably disposed to the book because of the politically correct criticisms in Publishers Weekly. "The book takes a reactionary, conservative approach to dating: she emphasizes the importance of femininity and of letting the man make the first move; "men are usually more attracted to women in skirts than in pants... literally as well as figuratively.""


Who's More Easy Going? Men Or Women?

In his happiness hour September 12, Dennis Prager discussed the importance of being easy going with life's little misfortunes like a flat tire or losing a wallet. I lost a wallet a year ago and it took me about nine months (due to constant DMV screwups) to make things right. Dennis wondered if it was possible to develop a more easy going nature?

All the callers were male. Why? I suspect because men suffer more from the emotional turbulence of women in personal matters and hence have thought more about the importance of an easy going nature. Author C.S. Lewis points out that if your kid broke the window of a neighbor, you'd rather deal with the man of the house than the woman.

The book Authentic Happiness says women tend to be twice as happy and twice as depressed as men.

Dennis says exemplifying means little. Dennis plays the piano and exemplified it to his kids and none of them play the piano.

Dennis's stepdaughter Anya, who recently married a man from France, phones in. She says, "As you know, I am not easy going. But I'm learning from my brother David."


Boring Old Tim Rutten So Wrong He's Interesting

Dennis Prager described today's LA Times Tim Rutten's article as "surpassingly ignorant, wrong about everything...moronic...dumb... The type of article I'd hand out to demonstrate the shallowness of liberal thought."

Dennis points out:

* How does Rutten substantiate his claim that fewer than 25% of listeners to conservative talkshow hosts are women? I believe Tim Rutten told a lie. [Marty Kaplan has no idea where Rutten comes up with this stuff.] Rutten just hates the right wing so much he lies.

* Folks like Rutten and the leftist media are angry that there's a segment of the media, talkradio, that they cannot control, and people who have educations at leftist journalism schools (virtually all journalism programs are leftist).

* More men read newspapers than women.

* I bet my audience is half men, half women. I base that on my callers, emailers, letter writers, and the audiences where I speak.

* As for this gender gap. The news media harped on Reagen about it, but women ended up voting for him. This gap divides among married women and single women. Married women, particularly married women with kids, vote Republican. Single women, particularly single women with kids, vote Democratic. Single women, who don't have a man to look after them, look to the government to look after them.

* I bet the proportion of women reading The Nation, America's premiere leftwing weekly, is smaller than that of women listening to radio talkshows.

Rutten writes: That doesn't surprise media scholar [former Democratic party speechwriter] Martin Kaplan, who directs the Norman Lear Center at USC's Annenberg School of Communications. He suggests that "the anthropology of talk radio explains its predominately male audience. After all, when you listen to one of these shows, it's all about screaming and chest thumping — sort of like what you see in those studies of the great apes. Think of the host as the silverback: He screams and thumps his chest, and the listeners call in to emulate him.

"That's not a mating call," Kaplan says wryly, "it's a macho dominance game. In that sense, talk radio is no longer much different than the sports call-in shows, which use knowledgeability of the game as a kind of male bonding ritual."

Dennis interviews Marty Kaplan, who he's known a long time and Dennis says is a good guy.

Dennis asked him for talkshow hosts screamers and chest thumpers:

Dennis: No.

Hugh Hewitt: Sometimes.

Michael Medved: Yes.

Sean Hannity: Yes.

Larry Elder: Yes.

Laura Ingraham: Yes.

Dennis: I'd agree that Michael Savage and Ann Coulter are chest thumpers. Not Laura Ingraham. I haven't heard Rush Limbaugh in years. Having a point of view does not make you a chest thumper.

Marty says that Phil Donahue is not a chest thumper. Maureen Dowd can be. Paul Krugman can be. Joe Conason can be.

Dennis: "I don't hear these [conservative hosts] guys as screamers."

Marty: "We have different thresholds of androgens and estrogens. When I listen [various conservative hosts], why are they screaming at me? They only say we're in this together and bad guys stay out."

Dennis: "I am not an entertainer. I am not here to entertain. I am to inform and change minds but I have to do it that entertains."

Marty: I don't see the difference. The people who pay your salary have as their primary purpose selling eardrums to advertisers.

[It so happens that Prager's employers are a Christian organization with an ideological agenda.]

Marty: I think all forms of discourse are being appropriated by entertainment, be it politics, journalism, education. That's irrespective of the content. That's true of The Los Angeles Times.

Dennis: If you draw no distinction between a comic book and the LA Times, the concept is useless.

Marty: If you can ask what do they have in common, opera and World Wrestling Federation, it will be illuminating.

Dennis: I don't agree.

Rutten writes: "First, of course, there's the fact that much of Schwarzenegger's recent celebrity is built around his career as a star in ultraviolent action films, whose audience overwhelmingly consists of young men. These are the sorts of movies most women forbid their younger children to watch on cable and scold their adolescent sons for renting."

Dennis says: There's nothing wrong with Terminator movies. They are cartoonish fantasies. Any woman who scolds her adolescent son for renting them is a fool. I like movies where bad guys get shot. I had my children watching The Lone Ranger at age six. But I bet Tim Rutten shares these negative feelings about Terminator movies while he probably has no problem with handing out condoms to kids in public schools.

LF says: Most talkradio hosts are not Conservative, they are not liberal. Many hosts like Howard Stern, Larry Elder, are libertarian. Tom Leykis is liberal.

On LA Observed, host Kevin Roderick describes today's Rutten column as "stimulating" because it agrees with Roderick's perceptions. Kevin has long written against the inaccuracies of talkradio.

Luke posts to LA Observed: Marty Kaplan is a moron. There's plenty of thoughtful non-screaming AM talk radio like Dennis Prager, Larry Elder, Hugh Hewitt, Michael Medved. Michael Parks of the USC journalism program told David Horowitz that there is not one Republican on the faculty, nor will there ever be, as any new hires have to be approved by the current faculty, who are all on the political left. Journalism programs normally lean left. As does Rutten and the LA Times.

As for AM talk radio being friendly to Arnold, I know that Dennis Prager has been openly skeptical from the beginning. The reason that talk radio leans right is that talk radio hosts have to defend their ideas. Liberalism is felt-through, not thought-through to quote Prager. Liberalism only thrives in arenas where its proponents do not have to defend themselves, as in the news media and academia.

Rachel writes LA Observed: Why do we keep hearing from Marty? Yes, he was a speech writer--for the most boring guy in the history of American politics. His track record at Disney wasn't anything to brag about, either. Talk about failing upwards. but the LATimes has his number on speed-dial, and he's quoted at least once a week.


Dennis Prager admits he lost his cool while talking with a listener about MTV. Prager says that channel is destructive.

At the MTV awards, Madonna and Britney Spears had open-mouth kisses, both in rehearsal and on stage.

Whatever society says is cool, people will do. Sexual orientation may be fixed but sexual behavior is not. We're polymorphouse perverse. When heterosexual men are in prison or on ships, they will often have homosexual sex.

Because society says homosexuality is cool, Britney Spears, a heterosexual, will share a lesbian kiss with Madonna, a bisexual. Now millions of girls who watch her will do the same.

I've always said Britney Spears is awful for this country. Even when she said she was a virgin, I said I'd much rather her sleep around privately and dress decently.

On private sexual matters, I have libertarian views. On public sexual matters, I have conservative views.

There's no doubt that homosexual behavior is increasing among heterosexuals. Especially women. Women want tenderness, caresses, and love.

Men fantasize about two women getting it on but women rarely fantasize about two men getting it on.

Trashing Arianna Huffington

I hear a large number of (largely conservative) pundits trashing Arianna Huffington. I have not heard one pundit yet question himself - why did I get suckered in by this woman years ago? Why am I so shallow in my perceptions that I'll go to bat for any smooth talker who seems to share my views?

I heard Dennnis Prager saying Arianna was a very sad woman because of her shift from right to left. No introspection, however, on Prager's part, for his vigorous support for her when her husband ran for US Senate in 1994. I remember how he decried newspaper articles that portrayed her as a nut. Dennis said she had been treated most cruelly by the news media.

It's similar to when I left Christianity and converted to Judaism. Many of my Christian friends wanted nothing to do with me. People become uncomfortable around those who change. We're only comfortable around those who are like us.


DP: The New York Times believes that its purpose of publishing is to influence policy, not to report the news. Yesterday there were two major bombings - on the UN building in Baghdad (killing 17) and a suicide bombing of a bus in Jerusalem killing 18.

While most major papers gave equal attention to the two bombings, the NY Times emphasized, with four columns, the Baghdad bombing because the NYT hated the Iraq intervention. The NYT wants to emphasize road map to peace and thus wants to play down Palestinian murder of Jewish innocents. Thus only one column to this latest Jerusalem bombing.

Hamas and the Palestinians love death. Israelis love life, as a Hamas official famously said.

TV news takes its cues from the NYT not the Washington Post, LA Times, etc...

The San Diego Tribune covered yesterday's events in a similar way to the NY Times. The Tribune is a famously right-wing paper that employed many of Nixon's disgraced aides.


Dennis Prager cited what he called an ultra-orthodox black hat rabbi, Yitzhok Adlerstein, who said he'd rather non-Jews believed in the Virgin Birth etc than have the values of French men.

I do not believe that Rabbi Adlerstein is a black hat. I've seen him on a hundred occasions and I've never seen him wearing a black hat. He's a right of center Orthodox rabbi and a member of Agudah Yisrael. Rabbi A. specializes in outreach to secular Jews. He works at Project Next Step. Rabbi A. is probably Orthodoxy's premier spokesman in Los Angeles and has deeply touched my life.

Rabbi Adlerstein and Prager have been friends for a long time though years have gone by, at times, when they did not see each other.

Nicholas Kristof writes in the NY Times:

Yet despite the lack of scientific or historical evidence, and despite the doubts of Biblical scholars, America is so pious that not only do 91 percent of Christians say they believe in the Virgin Birth, but so do an astonishing 47 percent of U.S. non-Christians.

I'm not denigrating anyone's beliefs. And I don't pretend to know why America is so much more infused with religious faith than the rest of the world. But I do think that we're in the middle of another religious Great Awakening, and that while this may bring spiritual comfort to many, it will also mean a growing polarization within our society. But mostly, I'm troubled by the way the great intellectual traditions of Catholic and Protestant churches alike are withering, leaving the scholarly and religious worlds increasingly antagonistic.

I worry partly because of the time I've spent with self-satisfied and unquestioning mullahs and imams, for the Islamic world is in crisis today in large part because of a similar drift away from a rich intellectual tradition and toward the mystical. The heart is a wonderful organ, but so is the brain.

Dennis replies: The problem with modern Islam is not the belief in the mystical but the bad values. Mystically inclined groups are no more likely to pursue criminal violence than scientifically inclined groups. Most if not all Arab intellectuals support Hamas (terrorist group), which is secular and accepts evolution.

The whacky groups like PETA, which equate the slaughtering of chickens with the slaughtering of Jews in the Holocaust, are secular. Those who support same-sex marriage are secular.


Dennis says Arianna Huffington is one of the saddest figures in public life. She went from being a voice for good values to being a leftist radical, denouncing loopholes for the rich while paying $800 in taxes in the past two years. Dennis says he has theories for her fall but he won't say them on the air because he doesn't like to talk about people publicly.

I remember when Michael Huffington was running for US Senate and his wife Arianna was regarded as a kook, Prager vigorously defended her and attacked those who attacked her. I get no sense from Prager that he will admit he was wrong.

DP says he wants to release how much he paid in taxes in the past years.

Democrats raise taxes and Republicans pay taxes.

Arianna sends her two kids to private schools. Does she support vouches?

Arianna says she won't use her kids as guinea pigs. So she regards sending your kids to public schools as guinea pigs?


Why Are There Fewer Marriages?

Wendy McElroy writes on Foxnews.com:

Non-marriage is a particularly difficult issue to address because, as a recent paper from Rutgers University entitled "Why Men Won't Commit" explains, official sources are scarce. "The federal government issues thousands of reports on nearly every dimension of American life. ... But it provides no annual index or report on the state of marriage." Much of the discussion of the motives surrounding non-marriage must be anecdotal, therefore, relying on statistics to provide framework and perspective.

In examining reasons for the current decline of marriage, one question usually receives short shrift. Why are men reluctant to marry?

The Rutgers report, admittedly based on a small sample, found ten prevalent reasons. The first three:

 They can get sex without marriage;

 They can enjoy "a wife" through cohabitation; and,

 They want to avoid divorce and its financial risks.

As a critic of anti-male bias in the family courts (search), the reasons I hear most frequently from non-marrying men are fear of financial devastation in divorce and of losing meaningful contact with children afterward. (Such feedback is anecdotal evidence but, when you hear the same response over a period of years from several hundred different sources, it becomes prudent to listen.)

In a similar vein, the Rutgers report finds: "Many men also fear the financial consequences of divorce. They say that their financial assets are better protected if they cohabit rather than marry. They fear that an ex-wife will 'take you for all you've got' and that 'men have more to lose financially than women' from a divorce."

Increasingly, men are stating their reasons for not marrying on the Internet. In an article entitled "The Marriage Strike," Matthew Weeks expresses a sentiment common to such sites, "If we accept the old feminist argument that marriage is slavery for women, then it is undeniable that, given the current state of the nation's family courts, divorce is slavery for men."

Weeks provides the math. One in two marriages will fail with the wife being twice as likely to initiate the proceedings on grounds of "general discontent" the minimum requirement of no-fault divorce. The odds of the woman receiving custody of children are overwhelming, with many fathers effectively being denied visitation. The wife usually keeps the "family" assets and, perhaps, receives alimony as well as child support. Many men confront continuing poverty to pay for the former marriage.

Weeks concludes: "Over five million divorced men in America are currently experiencing the situation I just outlined. Without a doubt, their stories and experiences are heard by unmarried men. Can anyone truly blame the men for having apprehension?"

He uses what has become a new term at least in the mouths of men: "the marriage strike." Most of the men who go "on strike" undoubtedly do so quietly but others are making a loud political statement. For example, the Joint Parenting Association declares, "An international 'marriage strike' by men is set to continue indefinitely until Family Law is reformed to recognize that fathers love their children too."

SGil writes: Anecdotal my butt. The researchers aren't interested in the point of view she revealed, so there is no evidence!

Want proof? Okay, I was commuting to Cupertino for about a year. (You remember, it was I first found you on the Internet when I couldn't listen to DP while out of town.)

I rented an apartment for my stay. My new phone number wound up on some list, because all of a sudden I was inundated with by phone survey callers for all sorts of studies. (In over 30 years in L.A. this had not happened ever).

One of those surveys was asking a bunch of questions, oh I don't remember any but one. That question was: "Do you think our divorce courts favor the man, the woman, or both equally?"

I answered "Most of all it favors the lawyers."

The young woman on the line said that wasn't one of the answers on her sheet. I asked, was there an "other" choice on the sheet?

She said, "No, but there is an undecided." I said "Well, I'm not undecided. I know enough about the contentious attitude many lawyers provoke as they advocate. It all adds up to hours for them. I'm very decided on this. The divorce judge doesn't turn to one of the plaintives and ask 'did your lawyer suggest this?' or 'that sounds like your lawyer speaking, is it?' whereupon if the answer comes back 'yes,' or 'a bit' the lawyer could be sighted for contempt of court or some such fitting penalty. No, I definitely am not decided on this!"

And the girl pleads, well the only other option is undecided. "I'll tell you what, please write in the margin 'Insists the answer is lawyers' and you haven't done anything wrong. Is that okay?"

"Yes, I guess." "Tell me, who do you work for?"

"Well, I got this job from an ad I saw in high school, and I think it's for a prof at ---" [I don't remember the college name she gave, but it was within NYC, I vaguely recall it may have been Brooklyn College.]

"How old are you?"


"Do you enjoy this job."

"It's okay."

"Have you had others complain about this question?"

"Yes, but none as insistent about it as you." ( I had gotten her to promise to put my answer into the margin by saying "well, if you don't do it, I guess this interview will have to end.")

About how many have complained about the question being too narrow?" "Oh, less than half -- but a lot more than any other question."

There you have it Luke. Wendy had to say it was anecdotal evidence because there is nobody who wants any thorough study of this sort of response generally disseminated. Can't be good for biz. More couples would either go for no fault divorce or actually (devil forbid) reconcile!


Prager hosts Republican strategist Arnold Steinberg.

DP consulted Arnie when he was thinking of running against Barbara Boxer for US Senate.

Arnie says that when Prager first consulted with him, Dennis seemed almost certain he'd run. Then Dennis decided against it for personal reasons (spend more time with his family).


Prager Unimpressed With Arnold Schwarzenegger

Dennis Prager will be on the Today Show Friday to talk about the Mel Gibson film.

Dennis was not impressed with Arnold's performance on the Tonight show. He lashed out against special interests but did not name any. He didn't get any specifics on his platform. He hasn't established credibility in the political arena.

There's no comparison to Ronald Reagan, who was in public and political life arguing issues for 20 years before he ran for office.

I don't like the idea that you go straight from Hollywood fame to public office without intermediary steps.

One thing I like about Arnold is that he's grateful for being an American.

SGil writes about the replay of DP's interview of Paul Johnson: Quote that got to me (and of which I wish DP would add to his "for clarity" list): "Hatred is to be expected. Standing for the right will get you hated" both from those wishing to do wrong and those inclined to slouch into compliance with the wrongdoers. "[paraphrase]Standing up for the right is often the loneliest thing in the world."

I've stated this many times. It struck me today, perhaps again, what I've understood implicitly a good portion of my adult life: how much good people need to hear it. As finding an oasis when parched. But we are never really alone. Could it ever be more clear why the Leftist/Statist's strive mightily to drive God from the public realm? Secular humanists relentlessly want us to see their intellect and control as supreme; that few of us must be allowed to be aware of the Supreme. Can being religious soon become a dangerous prerogative? Will the sun set today?


From NYT: 62 of 107 diocesan bishops voted to approve the bishop-elect, V. Gene Robinson. Moments later, more than 12 conservative bishops, their faces grim, marched slowly to the front of the House of Bishops to denounce the decision as an affront to church teaching that would split the denomination in two.

The new homosexual Episcopal bishop left his wife and children for a man. He compared his election to bishop to Christ's resurrection.

Dennis Prager Criticizes Sunday's LAT's Article About Division At Shalhevet

Barry Siegel wrote what I thought was a gripping and fascinating account of a clash of values at the modern Orthodox Jewish school Shalhevet. Here are excerpts from the article:

An enthusiastic young teacher finds an Orthodox Jewish school full of moral purpose and wide-open debate. But then he starts talking about the Middle East.

"Come in, it's warm inside," beckoned an ad for the Orthodox Jewish school Shalhevet, and that's just what Alexander Maksik did. It was a shock at first. There he was, a young sometime actor, a secular Jew uninterested in religion, newly installed as a middle school English teacher. In the hallways, girls and women walked by in long skirts, boys and men with yarmulkes on their heads. At 7:30 each morning, the students gathered to daven. In the afternoon came more prayer, everyone standing, bending at the waist. Shalhevet had a kosher kitchen and no Christmas break, not even on Christmas Day. Maksik had never seen such loyalty to Jewish culture.

He loved this school's pride. Even more, he loved its wide-open spirit.

Dennis Prager thought the article was pointless. He griped about how it took up most of the front page with a big photo.

Dennis: "The author loved the teacher. The LA Times loved the teacher. The thought that a Jewish school wishes its kids to support Israel apparently disturbs The Los Angeles Times.

"This seventh grade secular teacher [Alexander Maksik] decided that he was going to go in and show the other side. You would think that the purpose of teachers is to teach truth - moral truth, factual truth - not 'other sides.' But to the modern mind of the left, the typical secular person on the left, the other side is what needs to be taught and there is no moral truth. Here's the proof. I devoted an hour to this article:

"He didn't think you could say "this is right, this is wrong," and then claim you were educating kids."

"Isn't that awesome? And that's what the LA Times' loves about him. That a teacher could not say to kids, This is right or this is wrong. This the times finds worthy of front page attention - the beauty of teacher who can not say this is right... This summarizes our present moral crisis.

"The world has many crises. For reasons that are unclear to me, the vast center of the front page of the LA Times on Sunday was about an Orthodox Jewish school, which my son [David] had attended... This is all new to me [in the article]. It's not so much about the school as it was about the secular teacher they brought in and how he got in conflict with them because he wanted to show them a lot of pro-Palestinian things, movies, and books, and so on.

"I have zero problem with that at a later age. People should be exposed to all points of view. But when the point of view is wrong, it is not the duty of a school to subject a kid to it. Among the greatest [places] of moral clarity today is the Palestinian/Arab - Israeli conflict. One side wants primarily to destroy the other, one wants to live in peace. One side celebrates death. One side celebrates life.

"They celebrate the teacher in this article. He opens their eyes. He teaches seventh grade and he assigns Palestinian works in a religious Jewish school.

"The reason I think this teacher is not intellectually honest is that he would never go to a Muslim and assign pro-Israeli Zionist texts. The Muslim school certainly wouldn't keep him if he did, while this guy stayed for a while at this Jewish school until they finally made it bad for him to stay. People were not happy.

"The article is not really about Israel or the school. It's about the celebration of secular moral confusion. This is how your kids are taught by most teachers in secular schools.

"If the seventh grade teacher of my kid couldn't teach this is right and this is wrong, I would want that teacher fired.

"If this teacher in a religious school can't say this is right and this is wrong, why do I need a religious school? To pray and then have moral confusion."

Luke: "This teacher taught secular subjects. It was not his job to indoctrinate the kids."

Dennis: "Everybody in the article seemed absurd. The teacher looked absurd. The school looked absurd. Listen to this line after another homocide bombing in Israel."

A mother says in the article: "This wasn't what she wanted for her son. One reason she sent her child to Shalhevet was for protection — to buffer him for a while from the intensity of the world. Maksik didn't understand that. It was all just theory for him."

Dennis: "What a devastating line. It's all just theory. Why is it just theory? Because Maksik doesn't have kids and I bet he's not married. He doesn't understand what parents go through with kids.

"He had a big complaint there that the only articles on the school bulletin board were about Palestinian suicide bombers. All the news is about horrors to Israel. There's never any discussion of any other side. I wonder if during WWII, he would've opposed American schools only showing the horrors the Nazis committed but not the horrors the Germans underwent?"

Here are excerpts of this "pointless" article that Prager did not discuss:

When they studied "To Kill a Mockingbird," all the students agreed that the treatment of the black character Tom Robinson was racist and cruel. On the spot, Maksik asked: What would they think if Tom Robinson were a Palestinian?

"I would spit on him," one boy replied.

This shocked Maksik. He began to see in kids this young an expression, a look in the eyes, of absolute certainty. He feared that these kids were learning to hate other people.

To some at Shalhevet, the Palestinians were equivalent to the Nazis. That became clear one day when an otherwise gentle rabbi said, "I hope they kill all the Palestinians."

Some teachers on the Judaic staff averted their eyes when Maksik passed in the hallway. A parent told him she wouldn't mind if all Arabs disappeared.

The Passion - Jews As Christ-Killers

On his radio show today, 8/4/03, Dennis Prager said he saw the movie THE PASSION with Mel Gibson. Prager says one fine Christian man in the audience after the film said it made him want to take a gun and shoot the Jews responsible for Christ's crucifixtion. Prager says the film makes Jews look bad but he doubts it will cause American Christians to treat Jews today badly.

Prager told Mel Gibson the movie should make a ton of money in Arab countries because they hate Jews. This thought had never occurred to Mel Gibson. He's an American Catholic. European and Latin American Christianity is steeped in hatred of Jews.

Dave writes: "Mel's an Australian member of a Catholic splinter group that hasn't accepted the validity of any pope in the last 40 years or so, and his father is a leader of the group, holocaust denier, and antisemite (if you don't believe me, check out the NYTimes magazine article about him that came out some time in the last year or so)."

The film portrays Jews as Christ-killers. For the past 2000 years, Jews have been regarded as Christ-killers, and persecuted and murdered for it. For those who already loathe Jews, the film can be used terribly. I am not happy about this film going beyond American borders. This will be a big deal in other parts of the world to reinforce hatred of Jews.

Dennis: I don't blame Mel Gibson for this. I believe his only intention was to portray as accurately as he could, the death of Christ. He had only noble religious intentions.

Mel Gibson was not aware of the history of persecution of Jews for being Christ-killers. I'm working with Mel Gibson's staff to make for smoother relations.

Many Jews are over-sensitive. Just because someone says, "He jewed me down," doesn't mean he hates Jews.

The Jews look disgusting in this film. Jews have a right to be worried. It's also ok to make films that make Jews look bad.

In America, Christians are taught that sinning humanity killed Christ.

A caller from Mexican says she was called Christ-killer regularly as a kid. Mexican Jews live in enclaves and are kept out of the heart of Mexican society. Only in America are Jews an integrated part of their larger society.

DP: This film is made for the believing Christian. As a non-Christian, the film does not have the power that it has for the believer. I don't find two hours of Jesus being tortured inspiring. I wish this film were never made.

If Gibson had asked me two years ago, what type of film could I make to inspire Christians and help bring Christians and non-Christians closer together, this would've been my last suggestion.

There are a lot of lessons here for blacks (to get over their hatred of whites for slavery). I'm very pro-black.

Luke says: What the hell does it mean for Prager to say he's pro-black? Prager says he's color-blind. Doesn't take into account race. That he believes in morality not racialism. Yet here he says he's pro-black. Sounds racialist to me.

SGil writes:

It means several things nothing to do with color, but the reality is that he cannot avoid addressing the issue in the one phrase that is clearly understood. It's complicated for him to always say he "believes that there are only two races: the decent and the indecent." It means he is:

-- NOT anti-black -- he fights race hustlers (who ultimately must be anti-black because they'd be out of a job should they not be allowed to stir the pot with the help of the indecent in mainstream media who may legitimately be called race baiters)

-- he supports the moral code which demands all men be judged on their performance, not on other group think prejudices.

-- he encourages others to think and rethink their own positions if they care to behave morally.

DP says: My son David is more observant than I am. He's a college student (at UCLA). He walks around with a yarmulke. He gets no anti-Jewish treatment.

Dave Deutsch writes Luke:

In the New Testament, the Jews are responsible for the death of Jesus, and they are cursed for it. That's not Mel Gibson's schtick, it is, quite literally, the Gospel truth. No Pope has ever said the Jews of Jesus' time weren't responsible, only that the Jews of our time aren't. So if anybody has a problem with the film, bring it up with Christendom, not Mel Gibson.

And its such a non-issue. If it weren't for the press, how many people would even have heard of this thing? The film itself is such a hideously brilliant idea--aramaic and latin--but who would watch it? The largest pool of aramaic speakers in the world are Orthodox Jews, and I don't think it's high on their list.

This is part and parcel of the usual institutional Jewish narishkeyt regarding Christianity; most Jews are growing up virtually illiterate in Jewish culture, but what terrifies our "leaders" is that Isabella of Castille may be made a saint--like that's the real threat to the Jews.

Why Do Most Therapists Favor The Woman In Relationship Counseling?

Therapists tend to favor the underdog (and usually the woman presents herself as the underdog) and the more psychologically attuned (women). Most of the problems (about 60%) in a relationship come from the man, says psychiatrist Dr. Stephen Marmer on Dennis Prager's show. Family is not as natural to men.

The most common complaint in counseling is that each spouse says the other does not appreciate the difficulty of the other's role.


LAT: Jurors in the Donovan Jackson police-abuse trial declared Tuesday that they could not reach a verdict on the assault charge against Jeremy Morse, the former Inglewood police officer caught on videotape last summer slamming Jackson, then 16, onto the trunk of a police car and punching him in the face.

DP on the trial: If this had been a black officer or a white suspect, there would've been no trial. The police man here bashed the suspect's head on the car and gave him one punch.

He probably punched him incorrectly. It shouldn't have resulted in a trial. It should've been handled within the department.

If a policeman says get in the back of the police car, you get in without fighting back. That's what I'd do. You'd do.

Is trying to make police perfect going to make them better or worse?

Police can not be perfect. Police in Cincinnatti, reacting to black rioting, stopped using force with black suspects. Black murder rates soared. The people who suffer the most from ineffective police work is blacks. This shows how emotions in the black community over historical injustice overtake rational thought. All you're going to have is more dead innocent people, most of them black.

How can you be a white officer in a black area and be constantly thinking you are not trusted? I can understand white police officers in such areas saying, I'm not going to risk my life going after a black criminal.

The LA Riots were not caused by the Rodney King beating. They were caused by the media repeatedly showing a select few seconds of video of the beating. If the media had repeatedly shown any group member getting beaten, that group would've become angry.

We are using excessive force against the police by putting this officer on trial. We have more to fear from black criminals than from white policemen.

SECOND HOUR: Prager had as guest his friend Jerry Zucker, the director and producer. Prager raved about the stupid 2001 movie Rat Race. It's funny if you are about ten years old in emotional intelligence. Prager has watched it several times and loves it.

I rented the movie, watched the first 15-minutes and then gave up on it.

Murphy writes on IMDB.com:

How should I begin my comments on this movie, hmm.......let me think......stinks.....sucks.....awful....non-funny......how about crap! This is without a doubt the least funny, least interesting, least intelligent movie I have seen this year and maybe in the last decade. What happened to Zucker? The poor guy used to have funny movies, not this slime he offered to the public. Rowan Atkinson, can you say an Italian Mr. Bean? Wayne Knight, can you say Newman from Seinfeld? Jon Lovitz, can you say any one of his boring bits from Saturday Night Live? John Cleese, can you say the manager from Fawlty Towers? So on and so on and so on!!! Don't let me forget the leading romantic couple...its hard to believe they could be any worse than they were in "Road Trip", but guess what, they are in this garbage. Couldn't Zucker come up with any funny ideas? Oh wait, a cow tied to a hot air balloon....ha-ha-ha not! Wasn't funny. Wait, the dog and the heart....nope! The pierced tounge...zzzzzzzzzz! Ooooooo, I know, the Hitler car and the cigarette lighter....nada! I'm glad I checked this out from the library so luckily I didn't have to pay a rental fee. My only wish is that IMDB would allow you to give a "0" rating on movies, because that is the rating it deserves. Instead I gave it a "1". By the way, Mr. Zucker, if you are having nightmares in your sleep after making this dribble, its probably Stanley Kramer's spirit causing it. I think you owe his ghost a public apology.

Zucker talks facetiously about Prager's new diamond studs in his ears and his renting of pornos. This latter comment throws Dennis, because he's syndicated by a Christian network and was thrown off a station in Sacramento for his lack of opposition to porn.

Zucker says he doesn't like to make too many movies because it takes him from his family. Each movie is a lost year from the family. Jerry's wife calls the show to kvell about her husband.

Dennis: "Women remember everything written about or said about their husbands.

"You lament the preoccupation with sex in the media."

Jerry: "Primarily because I have kids. I have a 15-year old daughter and an 11-year old son. It seems particularly with TV that's what it is about - getting laid. I wouldn't be watching these shows except for my sitting with my kids watching these shows. It's no longer innuendo. My daughter says, 'Oh, come on Dad.'

THIRD HOUR: New rape law in Illinois is entirely aimed at women yet it uses the word "people." It's all about women changing their mind during sex.

SPRINGFIELD, Ill. (AP) -- A new rape law in Illinois attempts to clarify the issue of consent by emphasizing that people can change their mind while having sex.

Under the law, if someone says ``no'' at any time the other person must stop or it becomes rape.

The National Crime Victim Law Institute said it believed the law is the first of its kind in the country.

Lyn Schollett, general counsel for the Illinois Coalition Against Sexual Assault, said the law was important to make it clear to victims, offenders, prosecutors and juries that people have the right to halt sexual activity at any time. ``I think it will empower prosecutors in charging cases where the victim and the offender have a sexual history,'' she said.

But the director of the Victim Advocacy & Research Group in Boston said it would be hard to imagine courts not upholding a woman's right to withdraw consent. ``To me, it's demeaning,'' Wendy Murphy said. ``It's like the old saying: 'If it ain't broke, don't fix it.' I don't think it was broke.''

The law was inspired by a California case involving two 17-year-olds who had sex at a party. The girl changed her mind about having sex, but the boy did not stop immediately. He was charged with rape, and it took years for the courts to decide that he could be found guilty under California law.

The California Supreme Court ruled in January that a man can be convicted if a woman first consents but later asks him to stop.

Dennis: I don't like the law because trivializes the word rape. The word's been raped by the Left. Feminists and their allies in the Democratic party have denuded the word rape of meaning. It's come to mean any sex that a woman regrets. In the rape statistics of Ms Magazine, that regret is included.

For any woman who has been raped, this new law must be vile. I don't defend this behavior of men. I just don't want to call it rape.

If every undesirable sexual act is rape, then nothing is rape.

If a man doesn't withdraw quickly enough, he raped her?

If women initiate sex, and then change their minds, do they have any responsibility?

Feminists and liberals attempts to protect women is fascinating because these same people always tell men and women are equally strong, capable... It's baloney if women need all these legislations. If a woman can't handle a pinup calendar on a male coworker's desk, they are clearly weaker. Feminists must believe that women are weaker.

There was a movement of feminist law professors that a man who breaks an engagement should be sued.

If men are emotionally hurt, they have to deal with it. But if women are hurt, they can sue.

Maybe there are lessons women should learn from unpleasant sexual experiences, such as how quickly she gets into sexual situations. Maybe there will be a good thing to come out of all this - an increased reticence to have intercourse.

To call a man a rapist, because he did not immediately stop having sex with his girlfriend of a year, is terrible (referring to the California case). And it makes women look weak.

As our society becomes more secular, it becomes less religous and values based. With the collapse of values, you need more laws to regulate human behavior. We give condoms out to 15-year olds and arrest them more easily. Previously, we did neither.

Prager does not believe wives should be able file rape charges against their husbands. If a spouse or boyfriend does this, you should leave the relationship.

A woman caller said she believes she benefits from this law as a woman, by the broadening of the definition of rape.

DP says he's no longer aghast about the charge of rape.


When you have tension with somebody, write to them. It's more effective than talking it out. People write in a more understated way than they speak. If you handwrite it, it's hard to edit and hard to send. The ideal is to email.

DP: I have engaged in this in personal and business life. It is an unbelievable discovery. When you confront someone verbally, everyone gets tense and defensive and then aggressive. But if it is written, you can take your time.

Typically in an argument, one person will say, "I never said that." And you won't know. With writing, you know.

Luke: I like these suggestions and have used them for over a decade. The problem is - most women I've used them on have not appreciated the technique. They say I write things I wouldn't say in person. That's probably true. I don't like confrontation in personal life and tend to go along to get along. When I write however, I can express what I really feel.

A male caller to Prager replicated my experience. He left a list of problems in a letter to his wife and went off to work. She called him in tears, thinking they were headed for divorce. His friends had similar experiences.

Prager responded: You're a typical male. You think because she's crying that she's really upset.

Caller: She said we were headed for divorce.

Prager: She was emoting.

Natalie: Email caused two unpleasant experiences for me. One ended a friendship with a female. A daughter in law had a huge meltdown over it.

Prager: Most men loathe confrontation and some women do not either. Writing enables you to confront over things you won't do otherwise.

Natalie: Women tend to overreact.

DP: Women teach us to be more in touch with our feelings. We have to teach women how to talk more rationally when upset.

Natalie: These two issues were gnawing at me. I had to confront and I'm glad.

Male caller: If I were with my wife, I couldn't say many of the things I'd say if I wrote a letter.

DP: Maybe you need to say those things. Many men are afraid to confront their wives. They need to confront and this is the way.

SECOND HOUR: Christopher Reeve is visiting Israel because the country leads the way in paralysis research. Why aren't the countries surrounding Israel leading the way in paralysis research? Because they spend their billions on hating Israel. One side produces people who blow themselves up and many innocents to get virgins in heaven and the other side leads the way in medical research.


A group of parents said they will fight a possible decision to allow a white teacher to lead classes in black history at Oberlin High School.

NewsChannel5 reported that a scheduling conflict could cause the district to reassign the black teacher who has taught the course for seven years.

Using a white teacher at Oberlin High School would send the wrong message to black students, said A.G. Miller, an associate professor of American and African religious history at Oberlin College.

DP says: It's ridiculous to use race as a determinant of the quality of a teacher. Weren't the Nazis the last group to gauge people by race?


THIRD HOUR: Prager has guest Charles Johnson of website www.littlegreenfootballs.com. Johnson doesn't say much, Prager doesn't let him, doing most of the talking himself. A few callers who post to the site give Charles high fives.

Prager's show, like his TV show of eight years ago, has improved since Allan Estrin has come on as producer.

Picture of Kobe's accuser? - she's on the left Name of Kobe's accuser Kobe Bryant's Accuser Kate Faber

Is Kobe's 'Moral Bank Account' Overdrawn?


A nationally syndicated talk-show host [Dennis Prager] -- one of the conservative voices, but one whose show is based in Los Angeles -- was talking about the Kobe Bryant sexual assault case Tuesday and pushing his concept of the "moral bank account" as his rationale for favoring Bryant's version of events rather than the accuser's.

[Baloney. Prager did not favor any version of the events.]

The idea being that all of Bryant's positive, uplifting, clean-living, family-honoring, God-fearing acts -- or yours or mine -- amass like a passbook balance, offering proof positive, literally, that someone has been a good person. Good people, the logic follows, generally are not prone to criminal acts, and so on, and so forth.

Mike Tyson, for instance, had no public balance in his moral bank account -- he was morally bankrupt -- at the point when he was accused of raping Desiree Washington. Thus, the radio host said, it was easy to believe that Tyson was guilty of the crime.

But Bryant, well, his single-minded pursuit of excellence, his dearth of tattoos, his refusal to cultivate a so-called street cred, his manners, his thoughtful answers in interviews and his knack for simultaneously seeming hip and unhip, built up a stash of moral currency worthy of Fort Knox.


Dennis says he has spoken in more synagogues in America than any other person. And he has never heard a rabbi preach that we Jews should hate Muslims.

I've been in a hundred synagogues and I've not heard that either.

Prager, in his second hour, debated a Muslim web activist. The Muslim says there's all this Jewish hatred of Muslims. Prager points out it is not comparable. There are no Jewish suicide bombers, and few rabbis calling Jews to hate Muslims.


Dennis Prager points out that Kobe has developed a strong moral bank account. He's led a responsible life. He got married. He has no tattoos. He seems like a decent fellow. The number of characters in the NBA with good character and good family life (he married before having kids) is so small, I pray Kobe is innocent. It's important that inner-city black kids have a good black role model for a bourgeois life.

When Mike Tyson was charged, I tended to believe the accusations.

A juror is not supposed to take the past into account, only the event. In life, we act differently.

Feminism has warped jurisprudence. According to Ms Magazine, rape is any sex a woman regrets. When I was a kid and I heard a woman was raped, I shuddered because it was so horrible. But feminists have raped the word of meaning.

Just like the civil rights establishment has raped the word racist. Now it can one who opposes affirmative action. Rape and racist have become meaningless terms.

Wendy McElroy writes on Foxnews.com:

In his forthcoming biography Politicians, Partisans and Parasites: My Adventures in Cable News (search), Crossfire co-host Tucker Carlson (search) discusses another motive that underlies some false accusations. In 2001, a woman he had never met alleged he had raped her in Louisville, a city he had never visited. After $14,000 in defensive legal bills, Carlson discovered that the woman had a chronic mental disorder. He decided not to sue for redress since it would further link his name with the word "rape."

Carlson even hesitated to speak out in his tell-all book because "the stigma of being accused of that kind of crime is so strong." Fortunately, he thought it taught a valuable lesson: "I always assumed, like every other journalist does, that all sex scandals are rooted in the truth, period. You may not have done precisely what you're accused of, but you did something." From bitter experience, he now knows differently.

Even charges that are later revealed to be false can devastate the accused. Consider journalist John Fund (search), who was arrested on charges of domestic violence and publicly excoriated for sexual misconduct. The charges were later dropped.

How prevalent is the false reporting of sexual assault? Estimates vary widely.

According to a study conducted by Eugene Kanin (search) of Purdue University, the correct figure may rise to the 40 percent range. Kanin examined 109 rape complaints registered in a Midwestern city from 1978 to 1987. Of these, 45 were ultimately classified by the police as "false." Also based on police records, Kanin determined that 50 percent of the rapes reported at two major universities were "false."


Dennis Prager Loves Women's Breasts

Dennis Prager says: The line that is used most to support a woman's right to abortion - that a woman can do what she wants with her own body - is an entirely false argument. An abortion destroys something that is in her body. It's not her body. The most right-wing kook is not against women getting taboos, shaving their hair, etc... The moral argument against abortion is protecting the unborn.

But what about breast implants? Silicone breast implants were banned for all women except those who'd had masectomies. But if silicone implants were dangerous, why were they allowed for those with masectomies?

Now, the National Organization for Women has come out against silicone breast implants. This proves they don't care about women's rights to do what they want with their own body. NOW should say - tell women what the dangers are with breast implants, and then let them make their own choice.

NOW doesn't like women making themselves attractive for men.

Millions of American women have had breast enlargement in the past decade.

DP: I am for anything that science can do to make people, particularly women, more attractive. Looks are the powerful way that women attract men.

I don't like breast implants. They don't look or feel good. Too hard.

All the female callers who got implants were happy with their decision.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Too little is known about the long-term health risks of silicone breast implants for U.S. regulators to consider allowing them back on the market, health and consumer groups said on Monday.

The United States banned silicone implants for most women in 1992 amid a controversy over whether they caused chronic diseases, but at least one company has applied to sell them again.

The National Organization for Women, consumer group Public Citizen and others want the Food and Drug Administration to delay its review of any applications until longer studies are completed.

Arguing that many problems do not appear for years after implantation, the groups want the FDA to require clinical trials following women for at least seven to 10 years, NOW President Kim Gandy said in an interview. The agency currently is reviewing about two years' worth of data, she said.

``Two years of data is not going to give you any valid information so that women will know what's going into their bodies,'' Gandy said.

In the early 1990s, many women alleged silicone implants led to serious health problems. But a 1999 Institute of Medicine study found silicone implants did not cause cancer, lupus or other chronic disorders, although they can rupture and present other problems.

Since 1992, silicone implants have been available only through clinical trials. Saline-filled implants remained on the market, but are not as popular. More than 300,000 U.S. women got breast implants last year, according to the American Society of Plastic Surgeons.

Kobe Bryant's Accuser Tried To Commit Suicide Two Months Ago After Cheating On Her Boyfriend

Picture of Kobe's accuser - she's on the left

From the Orange County Register:

EAGLE, COLO – Everyone here knew her as the popular Eagle Valley Senior High School cheerleader springing with vibrant spirit and sweet smiles, as the beautiful singer always ready to perform in school musicals with the clearest voice and the strongest heart.

But her close friends have been doggedly protecting a secret in the unnerving days since the 19-year-old woman accused Los Angeles Lakers All-Star Kobe Bryant of forcing her to have sex with him - a secret that Bryant's attorneys could use to undermine her credibility, legal experts say.

Two months before the woman went to the Eagle County Sheriff's Department on July 1 alleging that Bryant had sexually assaulted her, the woman suffered under such mental anguish that she overdosed on pills and was rushed to a hospital, her friends told The Orange County Register.

"I think it was just a cry for help," said Lindsey McKinney, 18, who lived at the woman's house in May, when the woman took the pills.

McKinney was visiting other friends when, about 2 a.m. one day, she learned from the woman's ex-boyfriend that the woman had "overdosed." McKinney rushed to the woman's Eagle home and found the woman incoherent, lethargic and seemingly drunk. "I was scared. She wasn't really talking at all," McKinney said. "I was like, ' you need to open your eyes.' "

Moments later, the woman's parents awoke and called 911. An ambulance responded and took the woman to a hospital, McKinney said. Some friends said they thought the overdose was an accident. Not McKinney.

DENNIS PRAGER SAYS 7/21/03: The rape of a name is as bad as a rape without violence. So why name the accused but not the accuser? As the victims of rape are 99% women, this is as blatant example of sexism as there is. I thought we were all about equality now.

You could argue that you don't name the accuser to protect her feelings and those of the men around her. But the feelings of those who are accused of rape, and those around him, are just as real and deep? Kobe's wife feels just as badly about this situation as Kobe's accuser.


Dennis Prager On Santa Monica Farmers Market Killings

An 86-year old man, Russell Weller, drove into the outdoor farmers market in Santa Monica 7/16/03, killing at least nine people.

Dennis Prager, still shaking with fury: It's not right that this old man got to go home and sleep in his bed after killing so many people. I understand the people who wanted to beat him up after pulling him his car, even though that would've been wrong.

``Mr. Weller and his family want to express their deepest sympathies to the victims and their families of the tragic accident earlier today,'' Weller family attorney Jim Bianco said in a statement Wednesday. ``This was an unintentional and unfortunate accident.''

Why did his family have their lawyer make a statement regretting what happened? Why didn't anyone from the family face the music?

This wasn't an accident. An accident implies no one is at fault. The man didn't have a heart attack. This was negligence on the man's part. Negligence means not doing what normal prudent people would do.

Killings are a big deal, even if they are negligent rather than intentional. You shouldn't be able to kill nine people and then nothing happen to you. It's not right that people are killed and then society goes on as if nothing happened.

Prager linked his arguments into the Torah's teachings on non-intentional killings.

Dennis says he got into an argument with his wife Fran over this. She says Dennis is being harsh. We don't know enough.

DP: It's not about blaming this man. It's about taking killing of the innocent seriously. When innocent people are killed, do we do nothing to the person who killed them?

We should be careful about making it difficult for the elderly to drive. No car is the equivalent of house imprisonment.

Woman calls. "If my 16-year old son had done that, they would've beat him up. This is politically correct. Because it's old, we're not supposed to get mad at them."


Nelking writes: As far as Prager being in favor of porn and prostitution [LF: DP does not seek to criminalize these vices but he says they are unholy]--well nobody can be ALL bad :). I had never heard the story about him soliciting a prostitute [LF: Prager said on the radio he was with a hooker while in college in Europe]. That must have been a great moment in history....."$100 for a hummer? But the hooker down the street just offered to do it for $75. You know I would ever lie about that. I have way too much credibility. Everyone knows how much credibility I have. I've always been that way. Even when I was a child and my classmates would lie, I would always insist on telling the truth at all times. Why do you think your services are worth $100? You must have gotten an advanced degree to have such convoluted thinking? Do you have a master's degree? I would have gotten my degree except I don't like to type. Hey, why are you walking away from me? Come back! Are you unable to perform because you were injured in an accident? If so, call Berglund and Johnson at 1-800- if hurt."


British author Paul Johnson was the fascinating guest in the first hour. He said that France and England had to import many of its clergy from Africa. Johnson noted that the center of Christianity is shifting from Europe and the West to Africa, the Southern Hemisphere, South America, and Asia.

Dennis does not bring up Johnson's longtime former mistress (she used to spank him) who denounced him in the press as a hypocrite several years ago.

Johnson says that as you get older, the more clearly you remember the things your parents taught you.

Paul says he could not write a history of Islam. It would take knowledge of Arabic and a lifetime of learning to master the texts.

Paul writes a weekly essay in the Spectator each week. He says he reads a tremendous amount, a lot of it trivial, like novels.

This is one of Prager's best ever interviews (except the half dozen times he interrupted his guest with extraneous comments, such as he attended the University of Leeds, though Johnson barrelled over all of these interruptions).

SECOND HOUR. Prager says he was a michiefmaker and troublemaker in school. He hated goody goodies. Prager said he wanted to shoot those kids who "brown-nosed." (What a disgusting expression. I was shocked at age 19 when I first learned what it meant.) He also hated bullies and bad people.

Recently, Prager told his youngest son that he should rephrase what he wanted to say to make it kinder. The son said he didn't want to because he didn't want to be a goody goody.

Prager spent the hour discussing the difference between good and goody goody. Prager offered the example of him running red lights when there was no traffic coming in either direction and DP is convinced that the light is broke because it hasn't changed quickly enough. Prager looked at those drivers who didn't run red lights as goody goodies.

My answer is that a goody goody is anyone who is finer, kinder, more generous, more ethical or more religious than you are. It is a human instinct to dislike people who are more ethical than you (because their example inherently pricks your conscience) and to dislike people less ethical than you (for obvious reasons, including that they could hurt you).

None of the disinctions discussed on Prager's show struck me as convincing differences between good and goody good (that G&G is showy, done for attention, to flatter, religious automatons, difference in motivations). I think my answer is better.

A caller said that "cool" and goody goody" is fake while good is real.

THIRD HOUR: If a white had made Dusty Baker's comments that blacks and latins do better with heat, he would've been fired. Al Campanis, former General Manager of the Los Angeles Dodgers who said that blacks did not have the mental capacities to be managers and executives in major league baseball, and that they did not swim well, was fired.

Jimmy the Greek Snyder was fired after saying that blacks were bred to be athletically superior. That's identical to what Dusty Baker said. What's clear is that we don't judge blacks and white over identical comments. DP says neither Dusty's or Jimmy's comments were worth getting riled up over.

Prager complains about all the popups on the news page he's trying to read. Why doesn't he use the Google or Alexa bar which stops popups?

Prager says he has a problem when blacks refer to each other as brother in racially mixed company because it is exclusionary.


Prager said Michael Savage deserved to get fired for saying that a homosexual male caller who was harassing him should "get AIDS and die." It didn't matter that Savage thought he was off the air.

Prager says he's learned that it is a good idea to narrow the difference between how you speak publicly and privately.


Dennis Prager read approvingly from this WSJ editorial:

We'd also feel more encouraged if the U.S. began to rethink its strategy against military tribunals for the crimes and torture committed under Saddam's rule. In the best of all worlds, the decision on how to balance prosecution with reconciliation might have been left to a new Iraqi government. But with the Baathist-jihadi challenge, anti-terror prosecution is needed now as a tool of security and a sign that the old killers will never return. Iraqis afraid that the Baathists might come back need to be reassured by seeing their jailers punished.

There is every reason to believe that the U.S. will eventually defeat this Baathist-terror counterattack, as completely as it did the Republican Guard in April.

But the first step toward that victory is recognizing the challenge, and explaining it to America with the same thoroughness and candor Mr. Bush displayed before he committed U.S. troops. The lesson we draw from American wars is that the public will accept casualties, even in large numbers, as long as it feels the cause warrants it and that its leaders have a strategy to succeed. As late as May of 1967, long into the war and after more than 10,300 U.S. deaths, 50% of the American public still supported the conflict in Vietnam.


Dennis Prager was heartbroken that Kobe Bryant, Los Angeles Laker basketball star, was arrested this weekend for sexual assault. Prager hoped he'd be shown to be innocent. DP says Kobe has developed a moral bank account.

Prager rejoiced to be on the air in New York again. He was on WABC for two years, rated number one in his timeslot, but the pressure of doing two radio shows and a TV show made Prager sick (foot and mouth disease).

Dennis is now on WWDJ 970AM.

Just 2 Years for Shooting a Cop

Stephen McDonald writes in the Washington Post: On the night of March 25, a criminal named Bernard Johnson did his best to kill D.C. Police Detective Anthony McGee. Then, on June 4, a judge named Susan Winfield did her best to avoid punishing Johnson for his attack. This is a true story of how justice in the District can be a crime. Back in March, Johnson was already a two-time loser on gun charges. When McGee and I confronted Johnson in a Northeast Washington alley during an investigation, he was a convicted felon facing the risk of yet another arrest. So he did what came naturally: He pulled out his unlicensed .380 semiautomatic handgun, fired three high-velocity rounds into McGee and ran. McGee survived.

Dennis Prager wondered if a disproportionate number of judges who are lenient on violent criminals are women? Dennis says that rapists and murderers get about the same prison time because murderers usually murder men and rapists rape women.

Reform, Conservative Jews Celebrate Bark Mitzvahs

From Forward.com: Larry Roth, co-owner of the Doggie Do and PussyCat Too Animal Salon in New York's Murray Hill neighborhood, has played no small part in this trend. Having hosted about 30 Bark Mitzvahs over the past 13 years, he's become something of an expert on the matter. So is this a rite of passage? For most people, he said, the Bark Mitzvah is "an excuse to have a party."

"It's mostly Reform and Conservative Jews who come here to celebrate a rite of passage for their dog," Roth said. "Some people celebrate it after the dog has lived 13 human years, and some people do it after 13 dog years." Roth's mother, Arlene, helps out at the salon. Her view, it seems, has gone one step further than "like mother, like son." "I think my dogs are very Jewish, since I am," she said.

While most Bark Mitzvahs are organized with tongue firmly in cheek, Rabbi Neil Comess-Daniels of Beth Shir Shalom, a Reform temple in Santa Monica, Calif., sees a spiritual component that goes beyond dog biscuits shaped as Stars of David.

He has performed eight Bark Mitzvahs in the past 15 years. For Comess-Daniels, Bark Mitzvahs are about the spiritual connection some humans feel for their animals, not about a relationship between their dogs and God — regardless of all the linguistic palindrome jokes.


Dennis Prager says: If my dog is my companion, why can I not marry her?

For those for whom a Bar Mitzvah is just an excuse to party, why not for dogs? This is a commentary on our times. Only for those who take the Bar Mitzvah seriously, is this offensive. To put a prayer shawl on a dog?

For those for whom a Bar Mitzvah is just an excuse to party, why not for dogs? This is a commentary on our times. If you get rid of your religious basis, life becomes absurd. The reason so many stupid ideas arise on the university campus is that it is so secular.

I drove past a sign that said, 'Join our synagogue - we're a nurturing community.' We didn't have that language when I grew up.

Jewish religious life is moving left and right. There's no center any more. There's now bottled water with a kosher sign on it. There wasn't that when I grew up. You never worried that water was not kosher. The religious are multiplying religious laws. The left are abandoning tradition.


Sgil reacting to Dennis Prager's first hour [topic includes: plaintive lawyer openly teaching at university, and planning the "5 or 6" cases against fast food companies]

One of the statements made was that the food companies need to be sued because their low pricing strategies make it too easy for people to overeat! Well, so much for stamping out hunger as a problem for the liberals, now we must stomp out obesity! Of course -- it's a quality of life issue. Preservation of innocent life? As a role for government? Oh, how passe can you get, how retro!

This segment is so painful for me to listen to because DP won't connect what he's complaining about to the Malthusian elitists and their certainty that the planet needs to be depopulated. It's something he'd dismiss even with pages of evidence staring him in the face -- and if this were Friday, he'd follow this with his happiness hour without missing a beat.

From WSJ.com 7/2/03: BOSTON -- On a recent Saturday afternoon, John Banzhaf, a plus-size professor of law, finished off his chocolate fudge brownie, washed it down with a Diet Coke, and ambled up to the front of a packed Northeastern University lecture hall to talk about suing the food industry for making people fat.

Professor Banzhaf, an architect of the tobacco lawsuits that cost Philip Morris and others hundreds of billions of dollars to settle five years ago, teaches a course in public interest law at George Washington University. He calls it his "sue the bastards" class, and students must file a lawsuit to receive a passing grade. A federal judge tossed out one of several Banzhaf suits against McDonald's back in January, ruling that it's not the law's place to protect people from their dietary excesses.

Still, the professor is pressing on. Addressing a sympathetic audience here at the "First Annual Conference on Legal Approaches to the Obesity Epidemic," Mr. Banzhaf declared that, among others, Burger King, Taco Bell, Pizza Hut, Kentucky Fried Chicken and Wendy's would be hearing from him soon. "Seven suits are in progress," he told those on hand, mostly trial lawyers and their potential expert witnesses in academia. "Three have been won, and four or five more are in the works."

From Reuters: CHICAGO (Reuters) - Kraft Foods Inc. KFT.N , the No. 1 U.S. maker of processed foods, on Tuesday said it would reformulate many of its products, cease marketing in schools and take other steps to counter a rise in obesity that could trigger a rash of lawsuits against the food industry.

The maker of Oreo cookies and Velveeta cheese spread said it will develop a range of standards this year to improve the overall nutritional content of its foods and the way it sells them. It will begin making the changes, which could take three years, in 2004.


[10:07 AM] When DP encourages us to resist evil forces, he's a force for good. When he merely upsets us and/or vents for us against those controversial things he points up, the distinction of whether it's for good or evil is sufficiently unclear to be troubling. When he passes up opportunities to get to the heart of a problem -- well, what better is there to criticize in him?

[2nd hour topic: DP asked callers to answer if they would be more disappointed were they to find out that their kid smoked or cheated on a test.]

Sgil46: If he gets to the heart of a matter too soon, or if he lets a caller get to it too soon, the confused and perplexed won't call in, and he won't be able to demonstrate to them that they're confused.

Sgil46: From a programming standpoint, this is good. Talkshows thrive on controversy.
Sgil46: But, in the end, when the hour is up, how often does DP reveal the heart of the problem even as he sees it? And how often, in the interest of his programming, has he cut off the caller who sees further than DP?
Sgil46: Now, you and I know that DP's enemy critics would take what I'm saying and use it against him. They would lay the problem entirely to DP's self interest and/or cynicism.
Sgil46: Wow, In fairness I must salute DP. He permitted his late callers to explain that smoking can be overcome, but cheating is a blemish that is hard to erase and to forgive oneself over all time. I pray he'll continue, that he'll make a habit of getting to the heart of controversies he raises.

[Third hour, DP had a liberal critic come into studio. Ari Moss wrote in response to DP's 22 questions he had on "are you a liberal?"]

DP and Ari touched on liberal opposition to the DP.
Sgil46: Traditionally, the key to the legitimacy of a truly liberal govt system is one that protects innocents [Social Contract]. Those who insist upon absolute certainty over who is guilty will leave the guilty free to claim more victims. Those who insist that there is no such thing as deterrence from the death penalty care not that theirs is an extreme position that flies in the face of everything we know about human nature. Some won't be deterred, but some will. Presuming the never deters position relieves the holder of any sense of responsibility for the actions of the some who would be deterred. They have taken the position that, in that instance, the liberal govt shouldn't protect innocents. And DP, once again, missed the opportunity to get this kid, indeed all who haven't considered all the consequences, to face up to his conscious decision.


People Magazine Inundated With Pro-Demi Letters

Actress Demi Moore, 40 years old, dates a 25-year old guy. And the women writing in to People magazine are kvelling over it. Dennis Prager says this is motivated by hatred of men's proclivities for younger women and the desire of older women to believe that they are sexy. Older women and younger men goes against male and female nature. It's hard to believe that Demi's romance will lead to marriage. It's cutesy.

Advantages to it - they will both die at about the same time. It keeps the woman feeling youthful. But most women prefer a man they can look up to.

A 35-year old surfing instructor calls in. He has hooked up with a 52-year woman who loves to surf.

Prager interviewed two women who wrote in to People praising Demi. One was 47 year old and one was 57 year old. Each thought they were hot stuff and they admitted that their primary passion for writing People was anger at society condoning men dating much younger women. It's an anger at reality - that men fall in love with their eyes. Two women were naive, thinking that older men dating younger women was a singularly American phenomenon.


Stupid Credit Card Companies

I was at Ralphs the other day and my Bank One credit card was refused. Sunday, I went to fill up my tank and my Bank One and my MBNA card were refused. And I have a zero balance on all my cards.

So I was listening to Dennis Prager on his nationally syndicated show today, and he relayed ridiculous examples of VISA screwing him over. One, because he made two $1:83 Internet charges, which automatically triggered the cancellation of his card, causing him great inconvenience. VISA does not alert you when they do this. I've had this type of thing happen to me.

Another VISA card was cancelled on Prager's son David, who was in Rome, and had lost his ticket to Tel Aviv. Why was it cancelled? Because David spent more that day on the card than normal.


Dennis Prager says the Supreme Court's decision to strike down the law in Texas against sodomy was a bad decision. DP, like most conservatives and opponents of the Supreme Court decision, thinks sodomy laws are a bad idea. But there is no Constitutional protection to have certain types of sex. States should have the right to create their own moral communities and let them compete against each other.

Dennis Prager Visits A Nude Beach

Dennis Prager spent a week in Europe. On a beach in Greece, he was surprised that half the women were topless. He talked to three of them and found none of them were from Greece. Greek women are more conservative.

Khunrum writes: "Research eh! Or did he want to get a bit closer to some fine bare titties? That old pervert."

DP says nudity is not sexual. The women were more sexy with their tops on.

Design writes: "Sure, thats why I always ask my girlfriend to keep her top when we have sex!"

DP says: The women aren't going topless to be erotic. They are doing to it becaues they want to feel uninhibited.

Public nudity makes us more like animals. Clothing gives dignity to the human being. Public nudity is degrading.

If there's no issue with a topless beach, what's the issue with a bottomless beach? What's the big deal? Why should something be covered?

DP says he is opposed to topless beaches, not primarily out of sexual modesty, but out of human modesty and human dignity.

DP was asked what if his wife wanted to go topless on this beach. How would he react? DP said he would want to take her pulse. He says his wife has a stronger sense of propriety than he does.

Dennis was impressed by all the priests and nuns in Rome. People wearing religious garb amongst secularists has a powerful affect on society. American nuns who've gone native have made a dumb choice. Undoubtedly some of the religious people wearing religious garb were jerks, but the overall affect was positive. It elevates society.

In Thailand, many young men become monks for a year or two. If this society did that, have its young people devote themselves to a celibate holy year, studying your sacred scriptures, it would transform society. Just as nude beaches have their impact.

Mutt writes: You are too much Luke. Of all the people in all of the world, all the celebrities in Hollywood available for you to stalk, you pick some middle aged pedantic radio bore. oh well......i guess that's what makes you the screwball I like.

Bizarre Hugh Hewitt Exchange

Hugh Hewitt published a book, writes for www.weeklystandard, and is a Christ shockjock on the radio, syndicated on largely, I think, Christian radio stations, including KRLA in Los Angeles where Dennis Prager syndicates from.

This afternoon, 6/16/03, I heard him talking with a 24-year old unmarried male caller.

Hugh says pre-marital sex is immoral.

Caller: Why?

Hugh: Because my Scripture says so.

Caller: So it's relative then. Jews don't think pre-marital sex is unholy.

Hugh: Yes they do. Most Jews think pre-marital sex is unholy.

[Wrong. Only Orthodox Jews and a few Conservative ones believe that.]

Caller: Dennis Prager doesn't believe pre-marital sex is unholy.

Hugh: Yes he does.

[Wrong. Prager would call it unholy not immoral.]

Caller: You should read Prager's book, Think a Second Time.

Hugh: I never read any of Dennis's books.

Caller: Jews would say it's unholy.

Hugh: That's the same thing as immoral.

Caller: No it isn't. Eating at McDonalds for Jews is unholy but it is not immoral.

Hugh: Eating two fish sandwiches at McDonalds is immoral because it would deplete the ocean.

Talmud in anti-semitic polemics

Nelking writes: Some of Prager's recent comments have made me wonder if he actually thinks at all before babbling or if he has finally gone off the deep end and is no longer capable of coherent thought. first, on one of his very typical rants against the "educated" he insists that you have to be "educated" (ie have an advanced degree) to think that it is not important for a child to have a mother and father ; only the "educated" would hold such a belief.

This comment begs the question---does Prager think that ONLY women with masters degrees and doctorates are having babies out of wedlock, with the father having little or no role in the child's life? Does Prager somehow think that there are not teeming masses of "uneducated" women popping out babies that they will end up trying to raise on their own? Apparently there are a whole lot of high school drop outs who don't consider it particularly important for the father to be an integral part of a child's life. But , hell, Dennis----don't let the facts ever get in the way of your preconceived biases and opinions.

As far as Prager's current mental condition, the other day he was saying that three of the Canadian provinces should "become part of" the United States because Canada has already "lost its civil war", and these newly added provinces or states could help the U.S. (apparently the conservative side) in its ongoing civil war. This man needs serious help. I am a bit ashamed to admit that listening to his ongoing meltdown can be interesting.

Sgil46: nelson's errors: 1 -- ignoring that DP is speaking of other social commentators who have gone to accepting the non-traditional family rather than promoting the traditional family. And it is clearly deliberate. After all these years reading the Prager list, one such as yourself knows that the list has become home to detracters who care not to explore what DP is getting at because, as in the case of the "best" of those, ichy, DP's promotion of God based morality ran contrary to their agenda.

Sgil46: 2. Nelson using "Begs the question" is funny here on several scores. It was once an entirely different meaning. Related to "avoiding an issue" and not, as used today by people who want to appear literate, to suggest something leads up to a question. It was a very stale cliche once, and today it's a sign of stupidity.

You may find this supportive of why what DP does is important, why his detracters keep only to one side of the issues (despite the fact that DP acknowledges both sides). and why I'm dissatisfied with DP for not pressing his cases further and deeper.


In his third hour, Prager favorably mentioned this 6/8/03 New York Times column:

Why America Outpaces Europe (Clue: The God Factor) By NIALL FERGUSON

OXFORD, England — It was almost a century ago that the German sociologist Max Weber published his influential essay "The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism." In it, Weber argued that modern capitalism was "born from the spirit of Christian asceticism" in its specifically Protestant form — in other words, there was a link between the self-denying ethos of the Protestant sects and the behavior patterns associated with capitalism, above all hard work.

Many scholars have built careers out of criticizing Weber's thesis. Yet the experience of Western Europe in the past quarter-century offers an unexpected confirmation of it. To put it bluntly, we are witnessing the decline and fall of the Protestant work ethic in Europe. This represents the stunning triumph of secularization in Western Europe — the simultaneous decline of both Protestantism and its unique work ethic. Just as Weber's 1904 visit to the United States convinced him that his thesis was right, anyone visiting New York today would have a similar experience.

For in the pious, industrious United States, the Protestant work ethic is alive and well. Its death is a peculiarly European phenomenon — and has grim implications for the future of the European Union on the eve of its eastward expansion, perhaps most economically disastrous for the "new" Europe. Many economists have missed this vindication of Weber because they are focused on measures of productivity, like output per hour worked. On that basis, the Western European economies have spent most of the past half-century spectacularly catching up with the United States.

What clinches the Weber thesis is that Northern Europe's declines in working hours coincide almost exactly with steep declines in religious observance. In the Netherlands, Britain, Germany, Sweden and Denmark, less than 10 percent of the population now attend church at least once a month, a dramatic decline since the 1960's. (Only in Catholic Italy and Ireland do more than a third of the population go to church on a monthly basis.) In the recent Gallup Millennium Survey of religious attitudes, 49 percent of Danes, 52 percent of Norwegians and 55 percent of Swedes said God did not matter to them. In North America, by comparison, 82 percent of respondents said God was "very important."

So the decline of work in Northern Europe has occurred more or less simultaneously with the decline of Protestantism.


National Review article by Michael Fumento challenges claims of Gary Taubes in NYT's about high protein diet.

Nelking writes: Jeez, I hope this article doesn't take any of the glitter off Prager's recent "See I was right! I was right! You all heard me! I supported the Atkins' diet! My common sense told me it worked!" show